And Introducing...Famous Faces in their Film Debuts

The famous faces we see and know as Hollywood Royalty had to get their starts somewhere, right?  Here's a great video edited by Jason Bailey for FlavorWire that has lots of great first appearances by well-known actors and actresses.  They go by really quickly so I had to keep my mouse on the pause button so I could really see their faces, but it was really fun to see these favorites in unknown roles!

Enjoy!

The Hunger Games

Image source

After what seemed like an endless stream of casting and filming news, the film adaptation of the first of Suzanne Collins’ massive trilogy, The Hunger Games, has finally been released.  Telling the story of a dystopic and post-apocalyptic future where North America has been transformed into a new country called, Panem.  Divided into 12 districts, the country’s teenagers are forced to compete in an annual televised, and literal, fight to the death as punishment for the now defunct 13^th District’s uprising. 

Every year a boy and girl from each district between 12 and 18 years of age are chosen at random in what has become known as “The Reaping” to be named participants in the games.  The Capital administers the games and treats their “tributes” as celebrities, as though the opportunity of becoming a martyr is some sort of noble position.  Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a hardened 17-year old from District 12 volunteers herself when her younger sister is chosen to participate.  She and fellow District 12 tribute, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchinson) head to the capital to face their fate.

Filmed in a blue-tinted sepia aesthetic, District 12 is one of the poorest districts and as the visual landscape offered during the reaping in District 12 was so reminiscent to footage, both original and Hollywood-made, of The Holocaust.  Whether intentional or not, the similarities are clear.  As the children of District 12 are herded into their lines for the reaping, given the medical examinations needed to prove their identities and are unable to escape this prescribed role they’ve been assigned the file into the courtyard of the government quad like sheep to the slaughter to hear their names being called.  I couldn’t help but make this comparison watching people being forced to give their lives as martyrs whether they wanted to or not.

Upon arrival to the Capital Katniss and Peeta immediately find that they are on very different ground from what they’re used to.  Unlike the hardened faces of the coal mining community from whence they come, they are greeted with overly made up and adorned faces of Capital inhabitants.  The wealthiest of the districts, these privileged citizens seem to only concern themselves with fashion, food and taking enjoyment from the sport of the games and placing bets on which tribute will come out victorious.  Katniss and Peeta are whisked into a make-over area where they are plucked, waxed and shined up to be presentable on television.  This scene was very “we’re not in Kansas anymore” similar to when Dorothy et al were buffed and curled before meeting Oz.  How far we’ve come, huh?

As we peer into the world of Panem and the citizens of its 12 districts we are looking into a world that, while might seem very foreign to us, it has a number of similarities that we as a society might not be willing to admit.  Each district has its role in society.  While District 12 are the coal miners, and on the lowest rung of the social totem pole, there are others responsible for luxury items, grain, agriculture, lumber, etc.  Everyone has their role and purpose to making sure the country survives.  In contrast, it seems that the citizens of the capital control all the power and have the easiest lives because of the hard work the other districts contribute.  They are, one could consider, the 1%.  Despite this, and as much as we viewers would like to distance ourselves from them and their grotesque features and outlandish fashion choices, their obsession with the games and the level of joy and entertainment they garner from watching this ultimate reality television show, they are more similar to us than we’d like to think.

Additionally, cinema has a long tradition of playing with one’s voyeuristic needs, just watch any Hitchcock film, and this one is no exception.  What’s great about staring at someone in a movie is that there’s no risk of getting caught.  The characters are not going to “catch” you gawking at and judging them.  Most notably I found the citizens of The Capital the object of my voyeurism.  These people adorned in the most overly stylized and outrageous manners are hard to look away from.  But the harder I looked at them, the more I realized I was looking into the future of “us.”  We as a society are on a path headed right into the Capital, both from a social/cultural perspective and a cosmetic/aesthetic perspective.   The people of the Capital are by far the richest in Panem.  They dress lavishly and, to them, beautifully.  Seeing what they have accepted as the aesthetic norm initially is shocking, but as I continued to watch I understood how they could have gotten to that place as we are slowly approaching ridiculousness ourselves.  Just turn on any Hollywood movie featuring a woman over 45 and it’s like you are watching stretched and pulled plastic figurines strutting across the screen.  Pop stars are constantly trying to one-up each other with what looks more bizarre, hiding under the veil they call art.  Lady Gaga? Ke$ha? Nikki Minaj?  They are our “Capital” citizens.  While the people of The Capital might be an extreme, the books and now film are definitely commenting on where too much of a focus on physical looks will take us.

Secondly, and I think the more important message is the cultural effects of where our reality television obsessed culture is headed.  Ceasar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), the Master of Ceremonies and perennial host of The Hunger Games is a vapid sycophant that unfortunately is not foreign to the television screen.  With his blue hair and shiny veneers he preens across the stage grasping for the attention of those watching him and feigning sympathy when the narrative calls for it.  The people of Panem are held in rapt attention as he narrates The Hunger Games as they are televised nationally across the nation on every screen imaginably (oddly, the people all seem to be without smartphones, rather screens magically appear on walls, windows and other surfaces so even though it’s not in the palm of their hands they are able to watch anywhere they want).  They cheer and swoon as children are sent to their deaths and celebrate as victors are presented in the most morbid and literal version of “Elimination.” 

Moreover, throughout the “Games” the children also must remember that they are in fact on television and while fighting for their lives they must create telegenic personalities to ensure they are sent medicine, weapons and other gifts from “sponsors.”  The premise initially seems outlandish, and a gut instinct would want me to think that this is ridiculous and would never happen.  But upon further consideration we are almost there in a sense.  While people are not literally killing each other (although the tragic suicide of one “character” from The Real Housewives franchise is an exception), reality TV is figuratively doing just that.  Bad behavior from people on reality programs is encouraged for ratings.  On-screen cat fighting, name calling and general conflict are insisted upon by networks and producers if it means pulling in more eyeballs.  Appealing to the lowest common denominator is celebrated and encouraged in our current landscape of reality television.  So it only makes sense to keep pushing that common denominator down as people get bored with the status quo, so it almost seems like a natural progression to take it to the next level, which The Hunger Games does.

There is little shown of the reactions by the other districts from around Panem, other than The Capital, but it is made clear that not all of them are in support of these annual games.  While the children from District 1 are prepped for this their entire lives, being called “Careers,” and celebrate the opportunity to live up to what they’ve been primed for since infancy, others mourn the loss of their children.  In District 11, after one of theirs is killed, we watch the riots that occurred while lawmakers and “peacekeepers” tried to quell the revolts of the people who were rebelling against what they considered to be immoral behavior on the part of the government.  The so-called peace keepers sprayed them with an unidentified substance, (maybe it was just water, but it’s unclear), physically intimidated them and did whatever else was needed to do in order to “keep the peace.”  When people aren’t permitted to protest what they see as immoral what kind of humanity do they have?  Who is the immoral party in this situation? Are the inmates STILL running the asylum?  These are important issues our country has been facing for decades, long before Ken Kesey asked it in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and clearly ones we are still grappling with.

Interestingly, and similar to themes common in the 1950s cinema and then again in the 1980s, this film tackles the issues of what happens when adults, those supposed to be the caregivers, mentors and protectors of children are in fact posing more of a threat to them than any other influence.  In addition to the direct danger the government is putting them in to be pawns in their games, Katniss faces an ineffectual mother as she has been emotionally vacant since her father’s death and even her mentors, Haymitch who is more often drunk than he is sober and Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), her Capital representative who looks like Katie Perry met Jem and the Holograms, is more concerned with public appearances than actual survival.  The kids have to save themselves because there is no one else to do it for them.  This is also a story about children staying true to their own values and not giving in to social pressures of immorality.  There’s a lot of talk these days of children inheriting a flawed economy and having to deal with the fallout from the mistakes the adults around them made, so it’s no wonder these themes would be permeating our popular culture.

Any adapted film has to unfortunately cut out what sometimes feels like important details and plot points, and The Hunger Games is no exception, this adaptation works very well as a film.  It maintains the dark and dystopic overtones of the books and was not “glammed up” to fit Hollywood’s standards.  The topic of killing children could be easy to shy away from and gloss over, however director Gary Ross tackles it with cinematic grace and sensitivity without losing the gravitas of the moments of slaughter.  My one criticism of the film is that it felt very rushed.  Clocking in at around 2.5 hours, it’s hard to imagine it would feel like more time was needed, but it was.  I was disappointed that there didn’t seem to be enough time to really get to know some of the more peripheral, yet still important characters.  One of my favorite casting calls was Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, and I feel robbed that he did not have enough screen time.  Even Gale (Liam Hemsorth) wasn’t as present in the film as he was in the books.  His relationship with Katniss didn’t have a chance to get fully fleshed out, which is think is unfortunate especially given how important their background becomes in the upcoming two books. 

The Hunger Games offers a glimpse into a worst-case-scenario situation for where a media/conflict/looks based society can head.  It’s an extreme case of fiction and dystopia, but it’s also our responsibility to make sure it stays that way.

Letter and Number based films

Below are two videos which I find totally and completely mezmerizing and exciting in the way familiar works are reimagined.  They are short animations that ask you to guess the titles of films based on audio and visual cues.  Additionally it speaks to the iconography of classic films and how little you need to alert a fan to the specific piece. Take a look at the them and let me know if you can guess what movies are being referenced!  I was able to get most of them and will post in the comments sections.

The first one is number-based film titles from 1-13.   The second video is an alphabetical order of films from A-Z.

Enjoy!



   


ABCinema from Evan Seitz on Vimeo.

The Oscars Recap

Image source

Ok, so what did you all think about The Oscars this year?  Here are my thoughts.  I apologize in advance for being so curmudgeony.  I honestly didn't think it would come across this way when I set down to write this piece...

I always look forward to the Oscars.  It's my personal highest of Holy-days.  I sit with my printed ballot and mark who I want to win, who should win and who will win.  It's color coded and carefully considered well before the night of the telecast.  I listen to all of the acceptance speeches (yes, even in the technical categories) and cry at the In Memoriam section.  I love the pomp and circumstance of The Oscars as all of the actors get all glammed up and celebrate their craft and their industry. 

However, something felt different this year.  Something caused the whole night to fall flat.  I think part of it was the fact that the movies this year, on a whole, were not great.  So the first piece of it was that I wasn't particularly invested in any of the winners.  I didn't feel so passionately about any of the movies.  Hugo was my favorite, The Artist was interesting and it was cool to see an homage to Hollywood past.  Clooney did a good job in The Descendants.  The Help was good too, but other than that, eh.  I couldn't bring myself to see Iron Lady, Moneyball or War Horse - they all just looks so painfully boring.  So I didn't even really care all that much about who won or lost.

There were some high points.  I love that Christopher Plummer finally got his due.  His speech was thoughtful, sensitive and eloquent.  Esperanza Spalding's "What a Wonderful World" was heartfelt and provided a beautiful soundtrack to the memorial moment of the night.  I loved the surprise win by Brett McKenzie and his gratitude to Jim Henson was something all us Gen-X, Gen-Y and Millenials could appreciate. And, while I think I'm one of the few, I liked the movie montages they included.  After all, shouldn't a celebration of "the movies" showcase and honor those which laid the groundwork for future generations of film?  I only wish there was more.

I think what really irked me though was that all that pomp and circumstance was ultimately for a year's worth of work that wasn't really all that deserving.  As Billy Crystal said in the beginning of the show, we're watching millionaires hand out little gold statues to one another.  For the first time, for me at least, the show felt woefully out of touch.  Billy Crystal and the producers did a good job trying to make it feel more relevant and give it a little lift without obviously pandering to the 18-25 demo (Can we all agree to erase the James Franco/Anne Hathaway debacle from the record).  I thought the addition of Cirque Du Soliel was great and the little comedic snippets like with Kermit and Miss Piggy or the Wizard of Oz "focus group" were clever.  But ultimately I felt like we were rewarding people for a lot of mediocrity.  Sure, the awards have to happen so someone has to win, but it feels so lame watch the self-congratulatory nature of this group recognizing and honoring what is ultimately overall sub-par work.

Another point I'd also like to make now that I have the floor is that the documentaries, doc shorts, and animated shorts should be more available to the public.  Often times these are the categories doing the most important and creative work and yet there is a limited to no feasible way to actually view the content.

And finally, will someone PLEASE feed Angelina Jolie?

I just hope next year's crop of films will be better so we can put this whole mess behind us.

Oscar Nominations




Image source

 Anecdotally, this year's Oscar noms have already started spurring a lot of heated debates.  According to my very scientific research on Twitter and Facebook, people seem to be overwhelmingly unhappy about the results.  Understandably, upset is generally over those who were either overlooked or who undeservingly got nominated.  Additionally, people get annoyed when the nominations are too predictable, but conversely also are irritated when nods are given to those who seem to come from obscurity.  The Internet exploded with wrath that Ryan Gosling wasn't nominated for any of his work this year.  How could Leo or Clint be neglected in this race?  The Tree of Life, seriously?  In short, The Academy can never win.  But do movie fans win either?

I always set my alarm early the morning of the announcements to see the announcements.  Often having seen most of the movies I get excited when my favorites are also the favorites of those who make the decisions.  Then, why this year did I not bother to wake up till after the announcements had been made?  Probably because on a whole, I am underwhelmed by this year's films and therefore I don’t have a tremendous amount invested in who is nominated and who isn’t.   

The only standout films, for me, this year were Hugo and The Artist.  The others, such as The Descendants or the much hyped The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo left me feeling as though something was lacking in the narrative.  I will say that I was surprised by a few of the choices, like Leo’s acting nom omission.  But J. Edgar wasn’t all that great of a film even though he happened to shine in it.

Also interesting, this years’ nominated best picture films are among the lowest grossing nominated films in Academy history. Some have been calling this a further example that the voters are out of touch with the movie-goers, but I would disagree. There really have been no stand out record breaking movies this year, and those which have done well tended to skew the numbers because they were in 3D and the tickets cost more to begin with. I hate to say it, but movies have just not been that good this year. 

The Academy has often been accused of neglecting the masses, that the movies they choose are not what the people are seeing.  I don't think that's a huge problem.  Take Bridesmaids for instance.  Funny movie, lots of people saw it and loved it.  Do I think it's best picture worthy?  Definitely not.  The Oscars are about celebrating the craft and artistry of film and filmmaking.  I hate to sound like a snob, but when it comes to those qualifications, Bridesmaids does not fit the bill.  And should no be nominated solely based on the fact that a lot of people saw it.  It's finding the crossover that is important, that's the sweet spot between mass adoration and quality artwork. 

I’d also like to add that in a cinematic landscape where the independent films are continuing to hold ground and make an impression on voters and viewers (http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/oscars-indies-capture-60-nominations/), I find it increasingly frustrating that there are little to no opportunity to see the documentaries or foreign films before the Oscar telecast. Art house films should be distributed more widely and offered to a larger audience than is now.

So there’s my take on this morning’s announcements. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Here’s the complete list of nominations:

Best Motion Picture of the Year
The Artist (2011): Thomas Langmann
The Descendants (2011): Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011): Scott Rudin
The Help (2011): Brunson Green, Chris Columbus, Michael Barnathan
Hugo (2011/II): Graham King, Martin Scorsese
Midnight in Paris (2011): Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum
Moneyball (2011): Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Brad Pitt
The Tree of Life (2011): Nominees to be determined
War Horse (2011): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Demián Bichir for A Better Life (2011)
George Clooney for The Descendants (2011)
Jean Dujardin for The Artist (2011)
Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Brad Pitt for Moneyball (2011)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs (2011)
Viola Davis for The Help (2011)
Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (2011)
Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn (2011)
Jonah Hill for Moneyball (2011)
Nick Nolte for Warrior (2011)
Christopher Plummer for Beginners (2010)
Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo for The Artist (2011)
Jessica Chastain for The Help (2011)
Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids (2011)
Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs (2011)
Octavia Spencer for The Help (2011)

Best Achievement in Directing
Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris (2011)
Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist (2011)
Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life (2011)
Alexander Payne for The Descendants (2011)
Martin Scorsese for Hugo (2011/II)

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
The Artist (2011): Michel Hazanavicius
Bridesmaids (2011): Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo
Margin Call (2011): J.C. Chandor
Midnight in Paris (2011): Woody Allen
A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
The Descendants (2011): Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash
Hugo (2011/II): John Logan
The Ides of March (2011): George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon
Moneyball (2011): Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughan

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
A Cat in Paris (2010): Alain Gagnol, Jean-Loup Felicioli
Chico & Rita (2010): Fernando Trueba, Javier Mariscal
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011): Jennifer Yuh
Puss in Boots (2011): Chris Miller
Rango (2011): Gore Verbinski

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Bullhead (2011): Michael R. Roskam(Belgium)
Footnote (2011): Joseph Cedar(Israel)
In Darkness (2011): Agnieszka Holland(Poland)
Monsieur Lazhar (2011): Philippe Falardeau(Canada)
A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi(Iran)

Best Achievement in Cinematography
The Artist (2011): Guillaume Schiffman
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Jeff Cronenweth
Hugo (2011/II): Robert Richardson
The Tree of Life (2011): Emmanuel Lubezki
War Horse (2011): Janusz Kaminski

Best Achievement in Editing
The Artist (2011): Anne-Sophie Bion, Michel Hazanavicius
The Descendants (2011): Kevin Tent
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Angus Wall, Kirk Baxter
Hugo (2011/II): Thelma Schoonmaker
Moneyball (2011): Christopher Tellefsen

Best Achievement in Art Direction
The Artist (2011): Laurence Bennett, Robert Gould
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan
Hugo (2011/II): Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo
Midnight in Paris (2011): Anne Seibel, Hélène Dubreuil
War Horse (2011): Rick Carter, Lee Sandales

Best Achievement in Costume Design
Anonymous (2011/I): Lisy Christl
The Artist (2011): Mark Bridges
Hugo (2011/II): Sandy Powell
Jane Eyre (2011): Michael O'Connor
W.E. (2011): Arianne Phillips

Best Achievement in Makeup
Albert Nobbs (2011): Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnson, Matthew W. Mungle
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, Lisa Tomblin
The Iron Lady (2011): Mark Coulier, J. Roy Helland

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
The Adventures of Tintin (2011): John Williams
The Artist (2011): Ludovic Bource
Hugo (2011/II): Howard Shore
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Alberto Iglesias
War Horse (2011): John Williams

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
The Muppets (2011): Bret McKenzie("Man or Muppet")
Rio (2011): Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown, Siedah Garrett("Real in Rio")

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Bo Persson
Hugo (2011/II): Tom Fleischman, John Midgley
Moneyball (2011): Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco, Ed Novick
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Peter J. Devlin
War Horse (2011): Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson, Stuart Wilson

Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Drive (2011): Lon Bender, Victor Ray Ennis
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Ren Klyce
Hugo (2011/II): Philip Stockton, Eugene Gearty
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl
War Horse (2011): Richard Hymns, Gary Rydstrom

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, John Richardson
Hugo (2011/II): Robert Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann, Alex Henning
Real Steel (2011): Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Danny Gordon Taylor, Swen Gillberg
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011): Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White, Daniel Barrett
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew E. Butler, John Frazier

Best Documentary, Features
Hell and Back Again (2011): Danfung Dennis, Mike Lerner
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (2011): Marshall Curry, Sam Cullman
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory (2011): Joe Berlinger, Bruce Sinofsky
Pina (2011): Wim Wenders, Gian-Piero Ringel
Undefeated (2011): Daniel Lindsay, T.J. Martin, Rich Middlemas

Best Documentary, Short Subjects
The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement (2011): Robin Fryday, Gail Dolgin
God Is the Bigger Elvis: Rebecca Cammisa, Julie Anderson
Incident in New Baghdad (2011): James Spione
Saving Face (2011/II): Daniel Junge, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom (2011): Lucy Walker, Kira Carstensen

Best Short Film, Animated
Dimanche (2011): Patrick Doyon
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore (2011): William Joyce, Brandon Oldenburg
La Luna (2011): Enrico Casarosa
A Morning Stroll (2011): Grant Orchard, Sue Goffe
Wild Life (2011): Amanda Forbis, Wendy Tilby

Best Short Film, Live Action
Pentecost (2011): Peter McDonald
Raju (2011): Max Zähle, Stefan Gieren
The Shore: Terry George, Oorlagh George
Time Freak (2011): Andrew Bowler, Gigi Causey
Tuba Atlantic (2010): Hallvar Witzø

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Image source

The American adaptation of Steig Larsson's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was probably one of the most highly anticipated films of the 2011 awards season.  The Swedish mystery novel has been extremely popular since it's debut in 2008 and has spawned 2 sequels and Swedish film versions of all three books.  This American film, directed by David Fincher (The Social Network), is just the latest iteration of the stories about expert hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) and investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig). 

In Dragon Tattoo, Blomkvist is tasked with tracking down the murderer of Harriet Vanger, the niece of business tycoon and millionaire Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer).  Blomkvist hires Salander as a research assistant and the two begin unraveling a story that turns out to be much more than a missing person's case.  Blomkvist becomes uncomfortably familiar with the innerworkings of this family whose lineage contains more than its fair share of molesters, Nazis and other unsavory folks.  He delves into the details of the fateful day when Harriet disappeared, trying to understand the events that led up to her supposed murder.  Salander, a girl lacking normal social skills and mores, comes on as Blomkvist's research assistant.  She is chosen for her expert hacking skills and almost obsessive attention to detail.

The casting information came with bursts of excitement as people buzzed about how they thought the choices lived up to their expectations.  I've been underwhelmed by this series since its debut and I was actually looking forward to this installment as a Fincher, Craig and Mara fan.  Unfortunately when the content isn't compelling no matter how much dressing up gets done to it, not much changes.  For me, the most compelling part of the whole movie were the visually intriguing opening credits set to Trent Reznor's jarring score.  I had hopes that it would be foreshadowing to a visually compelling film...unfortunately I was disappointed.

I must say that often times I feel like this story is like the Emperor's New Clothes - almost that I have to say I like it or else I'll be deemed some sort of idiot.  But this is my blog and I'll say what I want.  I don't like this series at all.  I found the books boring, the writing style extraneous, and finally, I simply did not connect to the characters or even the story line.  Of all the characters in this story, Salander is probably the most interesting, and her story isn't even fully explained until the second installment.  Furthermore, she's billed as some kick-ass heroine who swoops in and saves the day.  While there are some elements of that, it is definitely not the focus of the narrative.  This film also does not highlight her hacking skills as much as it thinks it does and instead paints her more as an anti-social outcast with a history of being being abused by men. 

To me the story feels forced, with the discoveries of each nuance of the mystery quite contrived.  I don't believe that after Henrik spending 40 years and loads of money trying to uncover the mystery, Blomkvist is able to do so with relatively little effort.  Furthermore, Larsson's writing style often contains extraneous sequences of irrelevant details and his narratives include scenes that are eventually unrelated to the overall plot, and unfortunately the movie did not do a good job of purging that information from the final project.

Additionally, and most frustrating for me, this film does not add anything to the cinematic landscape.  I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting with this movie, but I think it should have offered something new.  This feels like they might as well have dubbed over the original movie with English voice-overs.  The Swedish movie, while not perfect, offered a visual glimpse into the world Larsson created.  The American version pretty much duplicated it down to the color palate the film was shot in.  Interestingly though, this film was more violent and contained more graphic nudity than the Swedish version, a surprising turn for Hollywood, more often known for sanitizing its subject matters.   Moreover, the film and story claims to be a lot about female empowerment, as Blomkvist convinced Lisbeth to help him by telling her that they'd be catching "a killer of women."  Lisbeth is supposed to be an empowered female as well, but her greatest moments of badass-itude are uncontextualized and float in the story totally unconnected to the rest of the plot, this being the fault of either Larsson or director David Fincher.

What I did find impressive about the story after reading the book and seeing two film versions is just how attentive to details Larsson was when it came to constructing his narrative.  The entirety of the mystery relies on the unraveling of details based on photographs - a visual medium.  As an author, he needed to create vivid images for the reader to understand how the mystery unfolded.  The task of the filmmaker is much simpler, presenting the visuals directly to the viewer.  Ironically, the story works better as a novel as it allows the the viewer to take a more active role in understanding the story.  So it is interesting that a story which relies so heavily on visual components actually works better in the written form as opposed to a visual one.


So here it is, my declaration of dislike for this series.  I know I am going against the grain of almost every media outlet and critic out there, but here it is.  I see the Emperor and he's not wearing any clothes.

The New Girl is Adorkable

Image source

Has anyone been watching "New Girl?"  It's that new show on Fox with Zooey Deschanel which has coined the term "Adorkable."  I'm not sure why I started watching it, I'm usually not an early adapter when it comes to sitcoms.  I was late on the How I Met Your Mother train.  I am only now getting into The Big Bang Theory and while everyone seems to be loving Happy Endings, I just cannot get on board.  There's something about New Girl, however, that keeps me coming back.

A definite prerequisite of this show is that you must like Jess' (Zooey) quirkiness.  She's a total oddball, but there's something endearing and sweet to her demeanor that I totally works.  The premise of her breaking up with her boyfriend and then happening upon this apartment of three guys who agree to take her in is totally not believable, yet I let it go.  The three men (ok, boys) who she lives with are beyond sweet guys and while they also have their little character quirks and flaws, they are so relatable that they remind you of your guy friends, or the guy friends you wished you had. 

This show is about individual expression and being true to ones self.  Not once does Jess apologize for who she is, nor does she change because others are telling her to.  If anything, her being around encourages her friends to be more "out there."  What's also interesting is that her quirkiness and adorkability shines a spot light on the ridiculousness of being on the straight and narrow.  We live in an era where the conformists and the non-conformists are violently clashing.  That's essentially what the 99% Occupy Wall Street issue is raging over.  If it was merely over lack of jobs things would likely have not taken the turn they have.  The people sitting in Zucotti Park could be looking for jobs, volunteering their time, or doing something else to benefit society while they aren't working.  However, they have decided to make it known that they are nonconformists and are rebelling against those who work the system. 

That might be a bit of a stretch, but I think it's interesting that non-conformity is so much in the spotlight today, and manifests itself in different ways.  OWS has become very controversial and there is zero actual controversy in New Girl, so maybe thats the message.  That you can be different and assert your independence and not alienate mainstream society.  New Girl celebrates individuality and nonconformity but as an active member of the community.   Jess is different and quirky, but somehow she's also totally relatable.  All the characters are, in fact.  Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but nonetheless there might be something to it.

Inspirational movie speeches

Movies are really only as strong as their scripts.  Often times, narrative story structures include an inspirational speech by one of the characters either right before or right after the climactic scene.  In this video 40 of these speeches have been mashed together.  There isn't enough time to hear all of the speeches, but these snippets offer a glimpse into them and brought a smile to my face and (almost) a tear to my eye.  I thought I'd share it here in case you'd like to watch it too.

Ides of March

Image source

George Clooney is the writer/director/producer of Ides of March, and has chosen to explore the dirty underbelly of politics and current events in his subject matter.  In this film Clooney plays Mike Morris, an idealist, energized, honest and down to earth governor hoping to win the democratic ticket in the primaries. Ryan Gosling is Stephen Meyers, Morris' idealistic, energized, honest and down to earth campaign strategist who finds himself privy to information which renders him unable to trust those around, his mentors, or even his own instincts.  Despite his best intentions to avoid it, he realizes that if he is to have any success in this field he must succumb and become a tool in the machine of political conniving and deception.

In the film, Morris turns out not to be the upstanding family man he portrays himself to be.  He is neither noble nor selfless and ultimately all of the pontificating he does about values proves to be lip service to the public so he can get what he wants.  He energizes crowds by saying what they want to hear, not what he believes in or what he intends to do. 

On basic level, March takes on the dishonesty of politicians and the lying and cheating they all do to get to the top.  In that sense it's an old story - politicians lie.  We all know that.  The interesting piece of this film, however, is when it's seen as an allegory to the current administration and leadership.  Morris is clearly meant to be an Obama figure (the imagery aligns him as such in almost every way down to the copycat iconic "Hope" poster).  Is this how Clooney has come to see Obama?  In the last 3-ish years of his presidency (even less if you stop counting when the script was written) has Obama become such a major failure that even his staunchest Hollywood supporter sees him nothing more than a liar?

Clooney has been an ardent supporter of President Obama and in this film he seems to be conveying his disappointment, possibly in Obama himself, but more likely in the political system as a whole.  Not to say that he believes that Obama has done some of the terrible things Morris has done to get to the top.  Rather it seems to be saying that no matter how impressive a candidate starts out as, they will inevitably disappoint they're supporters.  There is no nobility or altruism in this field and anyone who thinks otherwise will be disappointed. 

This film does a good job at depicting what could be a real life political cover-up and explains the inner-workings of campaign strategists and how they interact with the press and the campaign managers from other candidates.  A stellar cast rounds out the other supporting characters - Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood all shine in their roles bringing depth and life to their characters.  At times it seems some of the lengths they go to might not be plausible, but really I wouldn't put it past anyone running for office to be as sleazy as the movie makes them out to see, despite the shiny exterior.  And that's ultimately the message the film is going for.

Golden Globe Nominations

The Golden Globe nominations were announced this morning.  Here's the full list! 
What do you think of the nominations?  Anyone undeserving of a nod?  Anyone grossly neglected of recognition?  I'd love to hear what you think in the comments!!

Enjoy!

MOVIES
BEST PICTURE: DRAMA
“The Descendants”
“The Help”
“Hugo”
“The Ides of March”
“Moneyball”
“War Horse”
BEST PICTURE: COMEDY OR MUSICAL
“50/50”
“The Artist”
“Bridesmaids”
“Midnight in Paris”
“My Week With Marilyn”
BEST DIRECTOR
Woody Allen (“Midnight in Paris”)
George Clooney (“The Ides of March”)
Michel Hazanavicius (“The Artist”)
Alexander Payne (“The Descendants”)
Martin Scorsese (“Hugo”)
BEST ACTOR: DRAMA
George Clooney (“The Descendants”)
Leonardo Dicaprio (“J. Edgar”)
Michael Fassbender (“Shame”)
Ryan Gosling (“The Ides of March”)
Brad Pitt (“Moneyball”)
BEST ACTRESS: DRAMA
Glenn Close (“Albert Nobbs”)
Viola Davis (“The Help”)
Rooney Mara (“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”)
Meryl Streep (“The Iron Lady”)
Tilda Swinton (“We Need to Talk About Kevin”)
BEST ACTRESS: COMEDY OR MUSICAL
Jodie Foster (“Carnage”)
Charlize Theron (“Young Adult”)
Kristen Wiig (“Bridesmaids”)
Michelle Williams (“My Week With Marilyn”)
Kate Winslet (“Carnage”)
BEST ACTOR: COMEDY OR MUSICAL
Jean Dujardin (“The Artist”)
Brendan Gleeson (“The Guard”)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“50/50”)
Ryan Gosling (“Crazy, Stupid, Love”)
Owen Wilson (“Midnight in Paris”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo (“The Artist”)
Jessica Chastain (“The Help”)
Janet McTeer (“Albert Nobbs”)
Octavia Spencer (“The Help”)
Shailene Woodley (“The Descendants”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh (“My Week With Marilyn”)
Albert Brooks (“Drive”)
Jonah Hill (“Moneyball”)
Viggo Mortensen (“A Dangerous Method”)
Christopher Plummer (“Beginners”)
BEST ANIMATED FILM
“The Adventures of Tintin”
“Arthur Christmas”
“Cars 2”
“Puss in Boots”
“Rango”
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
“The Flowers Of War” (China)
“In The Land of Blood and Honey” (USA)
“The Kid With a Bike” (Belgium)
”A Separation” (Iran)
“The Skin I Live In” (Spain)
BEST SCREENPLAY
”The Artist”
“The Descendants”
“The Ides of March”
“Midnight in Paris”
“Moneyball”
TELEVISION
BEST ACTRESS, TV COMEDY
Laura Dern (“Enlightened”)
Zooey Deschanel (“New Girl”)
Tina Fey (“30 Rock”)
Laura Linney (“The Big C”)
Amy Poehler (“Parks and Recreation”)
BEST ACTRESS, TV DRAMA
Claire Danes (“Homeland”)
Mireille Enos (“The Killing”)
Julianna Margulies (“The Good Wife”)
Madeleine Stowe (“Revenge”)
Callie Thorne (“Necessary Roughness”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, TV SERIES, MINI-SERIES or MOVIE
Peter Dinklange (“Game of Thrones”)
Paul Giamatti (“Too Big to Fail”)
Guy Pearce (“Mildred Pierce”)
Tim Robbins (“Cinema Verite”)
Eric Stonestreet (“Modern Family”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS, TV SERIES, MINI-SERIES or MOVIE
Jessica Lange (“American Horror Story”)
Kelly Macdonald (“Boardwalk Empire”)
Maggie Smith (“Downton Abbey (Masterpiece)")
SofiaVegara (“Modern Family”)
Evan Rachel Wood (“Mildred Pierce”)
BEST ACTOR, TV COMEDY
Alec Baldwin (“30 Rock”)
David Duchovny (“Californication”)
Johnny Galecki (“The Big Bang Theory”)
Thomas Jane (“Hung”)
Matt LeBlanc (“Episodes”)
BEST COMEDY SERIES, TV
“Enlightened”
“Episodes”
“Glee”
“Modern Family”
“New Girl”

Melancholia

 **Fair warning, this review is quite involved and probably reads more like an essay, but I think, and hope, it offers some interesting insights.  Enjoy**

Image source

I was torn about going to see Melancholia.  Like for so many of my grandparents’ generation who love opera and classical music but found themselves struggling over whether they can listen to Wagner’s music knowing his political allegiances, I too was not particularly pleased with supporting someone who seems to want to bring Nazism back in vogue.  Director Lars Von Trier made some horrible comments at the Cannes Film Festival a number of months back which showed allegiance to the Nazi party and was declared “persona non grata” by the festival and general social outcast.  Nevertheless, as a scholar and fan of the movies and given the artistic noise the film has been making I made the decision that the art and the artist can be separated.  After all, as a student of the cinema I am a strong supporter of the old adage, “Trust the art, not the artist.”

Told almost as two separate movies, Melancholia introduces us to a world where another planet, a much larger one, is on a collision course with earth.  Subtitled "Part 1: Justine," the first half of the film is about a wedding.  Kirsten Dunst plays Justine, the daughter of two very dysfunctional parents who is marrying Michael (Alexander Skarsgaard), the seemingly most patient and loving man she could ask for.  He loves her tremendously and for the most part ignores her instabilities to be with her.  Justine suffers from manic depression, and even at her own wedding finds herself in a state of melancholy (no coincidence as we will see) and often sneaking off to just be alone.  The wedding is constantly being delayed due to her disappearances and her wealthy sister and brother-in-law who have funded the gala affair grow increasingly frustrated with the situation. 

The second half of the film, titled "Part 2: Claire," is told from the perspective of Justine's sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainesbourg).  A short amount of time has passed since the wedding and Justine has returned to her sister Claire’s house to live.  Her depression has worsened and she’s in a near catatonic state.  As the approaching planet nears, questions of whether the collision will actually occur still loom.  No one seems quite sure what will happen.

Image source

Von Trier creates an interesting aesthetic landscape for Melancholia.  The opening few minutes of the film are highly stylized and almost painting-like as they introduce us to the scenes of despair for some and peacefulness for others at the moment of impact while the rest of the film is the story of one family’s life in the weeks leading up to the collision.  These first images contextualize the impending situation, and while foreboding, does not offer simply a sense of doom.  They are beautiful images in which, often times, the subjects are arranged to directly mirror famous works of art and therefore evoke certain emotional responses.  For instance, one shot shows Justine lying in a shallow pool of water in her wedding dress holding a bouquet of flowers similar to John Everett Millais's 1852 painting Ophelia, which audiences are shown later in the film.  This mise en scene directly links Justine with another fated bride.  Often times throughout the entire film, Justine is found mirroring paintings or photographs on display.  This use of iconic imagery in the opening of the film offers audiences a opportunity to settle into the ideas that will become prevalent through the film: depression, ominousness, being trapped, relationships with the natural world all are conveyed through these scenes and are all important themes in the film.

Further, his mis en scene is also used to directly align Justine with the approaching planet.  On an emotional level, as Justine begins to exhibit emotional distance and melancholy the planet is still far away, scientists unsure of its meaning and path.  However, as it gets closer Justine's mood begins to worsen.  In one particularly striking scene Justine wakes up in the middle of the night and follows its light outside the house.  Her sister hears the noise and follows Justine outside.  In this scene Justine walks through Melancholia's light while Claire stands in line with the light of the moon.  Similar to the familiar heavenly body, Claire is stable and predictable.  Justine, however, is like Melancholia: erratic and has the potential to cause disaster.  However, as Justine does offer much comfort to her young nephew, if the collision does not occur, and just passes through, it also has the ability to offer great relief and beauty.  Moreover, the planet is further linked with Justine through its name.  Called “Melancholia,” it evokes the feelings and mental state which Justine cannot pull herself out of.  Even in what should be her most joyous time, her wedding, she cannot bring herself to be truly happy.  People constantly ask her if she’s happy and all she can do is simply nod and smile without having the true emotion behind it.  So too, Melancholia evokes a schism for people as they want to be able to appreciate the beauty and majesty of the planet, but also fear what pain it can cause.

Just like the orbiting planet, Justine represents a lack of control – the planet cannot be controlled by the scientists on earth, she can neither be controlled by her family nor can she control her mental state or her actions most of the time.  Her family tries to control her and make her just like them.  In the first speech at her wedding she is lauded by her boss as the best copywriter he’s ever had and even gives her a promotion as a wedding gift.  She is seemingly on her way to professional success, which, one would think, would bring her happiness.  However, as she reacts to most things which are supposed to make her happy, she rejects it.  She also recognizes that work will never satisfy her because work gives you money and money does not impress her.  At times her illness seems to give her clarity, but it alarms those around her.  Her sister warns her not to tell her new husband of her mental illness lest he leave her.  She should repress her true self to be more mainstream.  However, the more she represses this self the worse she gets, ultimately being unable to care for herself at all. 

Towards the end of the film Justine begins to exhibit odd, almost prophetic, abilities.  She’s completely at peace with the impending situation and offers some interesting advice to her panicked sister.  Stating that no one will miss earth when it’s gone, Justine feels calmed knowing that if earth were to be eradicated ultimately it will not matter because no one will be left to mourn for it.  Claire, on the other hand, is unhinged by this news fearing the possibility of death for her, but more importantly, her son.  The melancholy Justine had been suffering from at last offers her peace where others cannot be placated.

Image source

The question of outer space being the great unknown is nothing new, but I find it interesting that this year alone came two films about the existence of other planets whose existence directly and drastically impact life on earth.  Another Earth explored the issue of a mirror planet and the effects it has on the self.  Melancholia deals with the impact of a newly discovered planet offering a threat to our world.  In a year where the trend in filmmaking seems to be looking backwards, these two stand out as looking forward, but with trepidation and a sense of despair and an inability to do anything about the inevitable tragedy which is about to befall everything we know about our world.

Melancholia does not feel like a dystopic film.  As with typical dystopian films, this world has not broken into mass violence and warfare.  People are not rioting in the streets.  Rather, there is a quiet ominous and suspenseful feeling throughout the length of the narrative that despite best attempts to maintain order and understand the world, inevitably suffering will befall the planet due to nothing in our control.  This is of course rather ironic as the suffering we face as a global marketplace in reality is all due to the misanthropic deeds of man. 

The current economic situation and much of the pain and suffering on a macro level has come at the hands of man's greed and insistence of acquiring wealth.  In Melancholia not even excessive wealth can bring our characters happiness or peace.  John (Kiefer Sutherland), Claire’s husband, tells Justine that it was worth it for him to pay the high bill for her wedding as long as she promises to be happy.  She tries to tell him she is, but in truth is not.  In this literal sense, money cannot buy her happiness.  Furthermore, Claire and John live on an expansive estate, with gardens and stables and house-servants.  Yet despite all of this, all the money in the world cannot ensure ultimate happiness and stability should Melancholia collide with the earth.

In our reality, the greediness of people and a consumption-obsessed society has brought us to our knees and we saw how vulnerable as a society we are.  However, compared to a cosmic force beyond anyone’s control which could literally destroy the planet, this is nothing.  In Melancholia, nature is now working against human-kind seemingly through no fault of their own.  In this sense, this movie is a lot like Hitchcock’s The Birds.  There has been a lot of talk over what “The birds” represent.  In his book, Hitchcock's Films Revisited, Robin Wood writes that the birds don’t represent one idea – like communism or sickness, rather they are an embodiment of a general state of anxiety.  Similar to the 1960s, the whole world is anxious right now.  Economies are crumbling and wars are raging and no one quite knows what our future holds or what our world will look like when and if we emerge from this current situation.  The approaching planet is that anxiety.  Any fear or worry can be put onto that orbiting being as it threatens to wipe out our world.  So while human kind might not have literally caused this specific threat to society, the anxieties we've created are manifested into this natural disaster. 

Image source

Further, as Sigmund Freud discusses, as we repress fears and anxieties they don’t disappear.  Rather, they strengthen under the surface and ultimately return as a monster. The same theory can be applied here.  We are so consumed with controlling our environments and keeping order that the monster of being out of control is repressed more and more until it returns as something which cannot be controlled.  Further, as we as humans continue to neglect our planet and think our actions don’t have consequences regarding global warming, or that our wastefulness won’t impact the planet in the long run, we are simply taking for granted our environment and future generations will likely suffer due to our negligence.  This is another way in which Justine and nature are linked.  She was told to suppress her mental illness and act “normal” to keep her husband, to keep her job, and to keep her outward appearances mainstream.  We hide our garbage by burying it landfills or sending it out to space.  We might even recycle at times or close lights when we leave the room, but as a global society we are just keeping up appearances thinking that we can keep up this act without any fallout.  Justine and Melancholia tells us that that is not possible. 

While most of the films this year look back to remind us to learn from our pasts either to remind us of where we came from or as a warning to not let history repeat itself, this film is a warning of what the future can hold if we do not recognize and appreciate our world.  We must appreciate nature and recognize the direct link we as humans have with our environment.  We must understand the impact of our actions upon it if we expect to be cared for by it.  I think that’s the ultimate lesson of Melancholia, that we are not independent from our environments – both the natural environment and the other people we surround ourselves with.  We must care for, value and respect our relationships with both and taking anything for granted can have dire consequences.

History Repeats

I'm happy, even proud, to admit the only Fox News I watch is when Jon Stewart shows clips from the shows. I don't have a Nielsen box so even if I did watch they wouldn't get the rating points, but even still I can't bring myself to ever opt to watch it.  I also admit, although not for reasons of disdain but for reasons of boredom I don't watch C-Span or any other programs which cover congressional or senatorial sessions.  Recently The Daily Show did a couple of segments that featured Fox News and a senate session quite prominently that got me thinking about something that I thought was important to discuss.

First is Fox News' insistence on creating a so-called war on Christmas by individuals or companies who offer wishes of "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or "tree lighting" and not "Christmas tree lighting". Puh-lease!  As though this country would ever neglect Christmas. Aside from our innate Christianity, our capitalist nature would never allow for it lest profit margins decline. Fox News, you're just being narrow minded and evangelical just inciting conflict.  It it has to stop.

The second segment he did, and this is more significant, was on the senates recent proposal to pass a bill which would essentially disregard the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.  This bill would allow the courts to jail anyone who could be considered a terrorist or associated with a terrorist. The qualifications for "terrorist" include things from people who are missing fingers to anyone who has more that 7 days worth of food in their pantries. These are arbitrary and dangerous qualifications to base terrorist activities on and since its in the name of "keeping America safe" there has been little outrage over the fact that aside from the disregard of civil liberties, we are turning our backs on our Constitution, a document whose main objective was to protect the rights of our citizens, not to vilify them. 

I, however, am outraged and cannot believe we as Americans are refusing to learn from our past to recognize this dangerous path down which we are headed. A little over a half century ago senator Joseph McCarthy allowed the same fear mongering to go on in the name of catching communists. He accused anyone of anti-American activities and of being a communist, no matter how peripheral their connection was.  Ultimately, he was proven to have caused more harm than good for this country and history has not been kind to him. 

However, it's important to note that during his time, the time the country was in a large part behind him because they feared their freedoms to be at risk, despite the lives that would be ruined forever.  This was a dark spot on our modern history and one which should never be repeated.  The movie Good Night and Good Luck forewarned us of the potential of such unfortunate events repeating themselves and yet no one seems to have heeded the warning.

With all that is being said and done in the name of "protecting religion and our freedom" basic rights are being violated with little to no outcry over the utter irresponsibility of these actions.  The ideal of separation between church and state seems to be evolving more and more into "state dependent on church."  Enough trouble has been caused in this world based on religious extremism and the last thing we should be doing is following that model, albeit in a different manifestation.  We should be aware enough to learn from our national mistakes lest we fall prey to them again and allow history to unabashedly repeat itself.

Looking Backwards

I've noticed something about this season’s crop of high level, artistic, intellectual movies.  Many of them seem to be about the movies themselves or are simply nostalgic for the past and longing for a different era. 

Take a look at this:

The Muppets:  A movie whose success relies significantly on the nostalgia of long time fans revisiting a well-loved franchise from their youth.

Hugo: When the movies were, quite literally, magical.  Where movies are direct connections to our past.

My Week with Marilyn: A romantic time where movie stars were elusive and untouchable and where Hollywood was mysterious and sexy.

The Artist: About a time where the movies were still new and the medium was still developing.

J. Edgar is largely about looking back at our history to better understand our present.

Even The Descendants, while not about movies per se is about appreciating what you have before it’s gone. 

So what does this all mean? Why this insistence on looking backwards?  Is this what Americans are yearning for or is it what Hollywood thinks audiences are looking for?  Also interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be one front runner leading the pack.  Every year there seems to be a film which is a shoo-in for at least some of the top awards.  One film which captures the hearts of audiences and which people root for.  This year’s film pool doesn’t seem to have that.  Martin Scorsese’s Hugo might have some of that, but a lot of people are considering a children’s film even though it has begun to win some of the industry's top awards.

I propose that these movies all look to our past to help us, and implore us, to learn from it. We live in a world focused on the future: How do we fix things now?  Where are we going from here?  When will our current social and economic state improve?  How do we secure our future?  In all of these conversations there does not seem to be much of a concern for how we got here and how to possibly avoid history repeating itself.  These films teach us the importance of learning from and appreciating out history and from where we come.

Additionally, in these unsteady times, looking backwards can offer comfort and a feeling of security for a time gone by.  For two hours in a darkened theater we can be swept away by the flickering images on screen and be totally immersed in a time where things were better, or a time where the movies can make things seem better.  This is nothing new for Hollywood films which have traditionally offered respite for audiences in tough times.  Those times always seem better in retrospect because we know that we survived them.  Perhaps looking backwards gives us hope and confidence that we'll be able to once again emerge victorious. 

There is a danger in that, however.  We must not rest on our laurels allow this fantasy of assuming everything will be OK this time just because they worked out last time to make us complacent.  Things worked out because of the hard work and dedication of those who made an effort to enact change.  We also must remember that our history might seem so great back then because we looked at it through rose colored glasses and through images which look good on the big screen. 

The Artist

Image source

 In an age where movies seem to be shouting louder and louder to be heard in a cluttered and frenetic media landscape, it is a bold and daring move for director Michel Hazanavicius to make a black and white silent film.  The film is meant to hearken back to a day where film was a young art form, still in the early days where directors were learning intricacies mise en scene, the nuances montage can bring to a story, and where actors were still honing their craft in this medium still in its infancy.  This was a time where much of the techniques we take for granted today had not even yet invented.  Yet there is something to be said for revisiting this style and eliminating many of the external hype to make a film which focuses on the artistry of the medium. The Artist is aesthetically beautiful with great attention paid to costumes and set design.  If not for some of the recognizable actors, one might think it was actually made in the era about which the story is told.

The Artist is about George Valentin (Jean Dujardin who captures the puckish flair of an Errol Flynn), a mega star from the silent era.  He's a charismatic, charming, and well-loved actor in the height of the silent film's popularity until the talkies come in and he's rendered obsolete.  Not helping matters, he refuses to accept this new medium and is convinced his beloved silent films will continue to endure.

A young ingenue, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) with whom he had done a couple of projects and whom he had mentored to a degree, however, thrives with the new style and is propelled into stardom.  While she encourages him to adapt, George's pride doesn't allow him to accept the help and he continues to spiral down into his own self inflicted despair until he eventually accepts the fate of progression and parlays his talents and skills into a new era.

To a certain extent, The Artist is a retelling of Sunset Boulvard, but with a nicer and less crazy main character.  I kept expecting George to announce that he is still big and the pictures got small.  The difference ultimately is based on ones ability to adapt to changing surroundings. George was dangerously close to becoming a Norma Desmond 2.0 had Peppy not stepped in and brought him out of it, and had he not agreed.

 The aesthetic beauty of the film is both a strength and weakness of The Artist as it provides a beautiful visual landscape, yet ironically it undermines it's own message.  The irony of the movie is that it’s about the failure of someone who has the inability to adapt to a changing world.  So by making in the style that was long ago abandoned for technological achievements seems to go directly against the case it's trying to make by bringing this genre back.  In the end of the film George does learn to take his talents and apply them to a movie with sound, thereby evolving with the times.  Therefore the lesson seems to be to evolve or die.  Shouldn’t that message be provided in a movie that’s 3D Imax?  Teaching this through an antiquated art form seems a little incongruous.   Furthermore, one of the biggest reasons why this movie won't be seen is because it's a silent black and white film and most movie goers have no interest in that. As The Artist makes perfectly clear, no one wants to see silent films anymore; their message is directly oppositional to its own style.

Image source

The greatest strength of The Artist is its subtle grace and artistry of the film.  It's beautiful to watch, and really asks the audience to sit back and enjoy the aesthetic experiences.  While it's about evolution and adapting to modern times it also asks us to remember where film came from as an industry and, in an era where interesting characters and strong stories are often neglected to make way for showcasing technology, asks us to return to what has always been and what will always be the most important elements of film: the story and the characters.  No matter how great the technological achievements, it cannot alone carry a film.  The Artist makes it clear that the basic elements are still and will always be necessary.

Clocking in at over 2 hours, the movie is a little long, especially for a silent film.  It's not boring, but it's slow at times. I will say though that it's definitely worth seeing as not only are the characters dynamic and interesting, but it's a rare opportunity to see a silent black and white film made to mimic those which preceded it with the sensibilities and influences of nearly a century of filmmaking knowledge applied to it.

Hugo

Image source

It’s hard to believe that the Martin Scorsese, a director who is known for his bloody, violent films such as Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, and The Departed could also be responsible for something as sweet and tender as Hugo.  Yet, despite lacking some of the obvious  Scorsese hallmarks, a number of themes and motifs remain that are undoubtedly his and his excellence in story telling combined with what was clearly a passion project resulted in a magical adventure told through the eyes of a child, and in turn creates a childlike wonderment for audiences.

Hugo is about a young boy (Asa Butterfield in the titular role), no more than 11 years old in 1930s Paris, who, after his father (played by Jude Law in flashbacks) dies, is sent to live with his negligent drunk uncle in Paris’s train station.  His uncle is responsible for winding the clocks each day and teaches Hugo the trade.  When his uncle disappears on a drunken binge never to return, Hugo is left solely in charge of keeping the time in the train station.  Stealing food and other odds and ends to get by, he lives behind the walls of the train station fending for himself.  Hugo lives his life watching out at other people and observing the world from behind the giant clocks that loom over the station.  He cannot roam freely in station lest he be captured and sent to the orphanage, so he can merely watch from afar.   

The only item he has to remember his father by is a automaton, a mechanical man that he and his father were working on restoring together.  His father, a watchmaker by trade, taught Hugo about machines and a value to them beyond just gears and switches.  After his father’s death Hugo commits himself to fixing the automaton himself, not knowing what it will lead him to discover.  He steals little gears and knickknacks from wherever he can find them, most often from the toymaker’s booth. 

Image source

The toymaker is a crotchety old man (Ben Kingsley) is Georges Melies, a pioneer of not only the movies themselves, but of special effects.  Once a famed artist and maker of movies, Melies eventually falls out of fame and is left with nothing other than the toy store he runs in the train station.  Melies started his career as a magician and applied that sensibility to the cinema, creating some of the most whimsical short films of the early years of cinema, many of which still remain as among the most important in pioneering special effects in the movies.  None of this, of course, is known to Hugo who only sees him only as a miserable man stuck behind a booth full of novelty toys.  Hugo befriends his God-daughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), and the pair bond over their shared love of adventure.  They seek out to discover the mystery behind Papa Georges' sour attitude and the meaning behind their shared connection to the automaton.

I don’t want to give away too much because watching the story unfold is a wonderful journey and I’m afraid if I say more it might ruin some of the charm of the film.  But I will say this: ultimately this film is a movie about movies.  Isabelle is fascinated by books, yet Hugo introduces her to the world of cinema.  For Hugo, and for all of us, movies are a means by which we remember and connect to our past.  It’s a way he can connect to his father, who introduced him to the medium.  It’s a way to be transported to other worlds and experience adventures one might never go on himself.  It’s a dream screen that, as Melies himself said, a way to watch our dreams unfold before our eyes in a totally conscious state.  

For Scorsese, film history and film preservation is a passion project.  He peppers this film with references, both direct and more subtle to the film pioneers and the importance of preserving their legacies.  The Lumiere brothers, Charlie Chaplin, Edwin S. Porter, Buster Keaton, and others all make appearances in one way or another in this movie.  Comments regarding how time has not been kind to old films refers to Scorsese’s tireless work in film preservation, bringing once lost and orphaned films back to life.  In Hugo, Scorsese treats us to some of these old films, some of which on the brink of extinction and now considered canonical in the study of film history. 

There is something interesting about the use of clocks as a reoccurring motif.  Hugo lives his life peering out from behind clocks.  Clocks are something which are looked upon to record the passage of time, as a pure function.  To Hugo, clocks are literally his life.  They’re where he lives, where he works, and where he connects to his father.  Hugo identifies with these machines, explaining that just as clocks and each of the individual dials and gears which go into making it have a defined purpose, so must he.  Everyone has a role in the world and it’s his responsibility to both discover and fulfill that role.  Only once he is able to emerge from behind the clocks and exist in the world with everyone else will he be able to truly understand his father's legacy and fulfill his purpose in the world.

Scorsese knows a thing or two about movie magic, and takes the lessons he's learned from Melies and applied it to this film.  Another visual motif he employs is one which has come into popularity recently.  This movie, similar to Sherlock Holmes or Wild Wild West, relies on the aesthetic sensibilities of Steampunk which is based in the Victorian age where steam was used to power machinery.  Steampunk has become a movement quickly emerging into greater popularity, especially aided by movies like these which bring it closer to the forefront.  The use of gears and a heavy reliance on machinery is the clear link to Steampunk and it's important here as it was really pioneered by Jules Verne in his book, 2000 Leagues Under the Sea.  Hugo even makes a direct reference to this book as a site of great adventure (and  Scorsese's wink to Steampunk aficionados).  The movie is all about adventure and excitement and using a Steampunk design is the perfect visual indicator to signify this idea.

Through the magic of movies, Hugo quite literally goes on one of his greatest adventures and ultimately finds the family which he thought he thought of which he would never once again be a part.  It’s a wonderful movie which fulfills the early film pioneers’ goals of transporting the audience to a magical place and taking them on a wondrous adventure. 

***UPDATE***

Video about Georges Melies on The BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16262815